71 comments:

I have yet to see evidence or statistics illustrating that Christian morals are not made up. We have to go by the theist's word on that one. I can certainly see many Christians worried about whether "they pass" or not, but atheists don't abide a fine line between salvation and hell, they're good for goodness sake, without bribery. Christians are always quick to declare their morals as objective and universal. Why? Is it because the Christian moral code was obtained from a story about an old guy who got two tablets of rules from god on a mountain? Then of course the bible has lots of weird rules in it that are supposedly outdated in a book inspired by the "timeless word of god". How can you have true morals if they're just made up? Probably the same way the Christians have them. Christians made up their objective and universal morals long ago, and they're doing okay i guess, though they can't always agree on an exact set of rules, and the rules tend to change over time... ... Right, because christians make up the rules as they go along, religions evolve over time.

atheists don't abide a fine line between salvation and hell, they're good for goodness sake, without bribery

TRANSLATION: Atheists piggyback on the moral code of society that was already put in place by theists before them. It'll be interesting in another few years as the west becomes more post-Christian given that moral inertia runs about 3 generations deep and the pagans/secular humanists/atheists will all clash with one another trying to define what is right or wrong through some fuzzy prism of relativism.

the bible has lots of weird rules in it that are supposedly outdated in a book inspired by the "timeless word of god"

The idea behind instructions from God are timeless. If such truths were relayed to people in terms that they could understand, living in a largely agrarian society at the time, then they can appear to be outdated. It's too bad tha many atheists don't look into the meaning of instructions beyond the literal translation.

Christians made up their objective and universal morals long ago, and they're doing okay i guess

A bit of an understatement, wouldnt you say? By what metric shall we compare societies that were predominately Christian throughout the last thousand years with nations in which the gospel is relatively unknown to this day? Take your pick.

Thank you Anon. I knew someone would come through for me. So reality is, you and the others that you know aren’t good without God AND you and the others that you know aren’t good even for goodness sake.

Not only don’t you live up to the standards of the Christian paradigm, you don’t even live up to your own moral system.

Lucky for you, “goodness” isn’t even the point.

In the series that I did on Sin In The Church (first post - My Favourite Commandment - http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2010/01/my-favourite-commandment.html

the whole point was, none of us are good: - Not now - Not in the past and Not in the future.

We’re screwed. We’re terminally flawed and Jesus is the only means of rectifying the problem.

Forgiveness is the best that we can hope for.

The fact that you can identify your lack of goodness is a sign that there is still hope for you Anon. Most atheists truly believe that they are in fact, Good People. They "comapre down" to those who are worse human beings and conclude,

Because studies show a strong correlation between socioeconomic well-being and secularity.One would think that such infinite moral inertia from the Christians would show up in polls. Again we just have to kind of go on your word here. You say we stole your morals, but then how do you know. Because Christians declared it was bad to kill? You think humanity would have made it as far as Christianity without knowing that? Do you honestly believe that Christians were first to obey they mother and thy father? If not, who did christians borrow it from? Do you think thou shalt not steal was cutting edge at the time? We would have never made it that far if we didn't understand basic morals. And the very very basic morals of Christianity are the only ones Christians can agree on.

So what about selling your daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7? Oh thats right, you don't LITERALLY sell your daughter into slavery, its a metaphor for loving thy neighbor! Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations, these are morals at their very best! I suppose I forgot to borrow that one. Or is that another metaphor? Though I do try to stay away from women of which are menstruating, as warned about in Lev.15: 19-24. I'm so slow, I wish I didn't have to take these things sooooo literally. Of course these are just terms relayed to people in terms they could understand, they used to think selling your daughter into slavery was morally okay, right? Sounds more like, they didn't get it right that time, it took the process of people, with time, to temper the moral code we have today. And we see it happening during our lifetimes. Black people went from slaves to president. women went from house pet to CEO and gay people will get their right to marry soon enough, and I project animals will follow later.

Your talking about relativism, when you can jump ahead a number of pages in the bible and read an alteration to a previously written rule, how relativistic is that? And we're not just talking about metaphor, not everything in the bible is as vague as you say. how fuzzy is exodus 15:3 "the lord is a man of war: the lord is his name." with Romans 15:33 now the god of peace be with you all. amen. We have to make choices about how we read the bible, that's relativism at it's best.

Because studies show a strong correlation between socioeconomic well-being and secularity

Of whom may I ask? Please don't make my point for me by using a country that is in the area formerly known as "Christiandom".

how do you know. Because Christians declared it was bad to kill? You think humanity would have made it as far as Christianity without knowing that?

Youre oversimplifying the matter as only a poorly educated, historically ignorant atheist can do. at least the more intellectually honest practioners of your non-theistic religion readily admit that Christianity has been a boom for mankind in a variety of ways.

"Atheist morality in a traditional Western culture is virtually identical to Christian morality with the excision a few of the sexual mores. But being largely ignorant of the source of these morals, most atheists don't realize that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is merely a small, but important subset of Christian morality, it is not even the most important part.

But atheists don't subscribe to the part of the morality based on the subset alone. They readily recognize "evils" that are not violations of the Golden Rule, but are instead violations of other aspects of Christian morality in its totality, violations of the Will of God. Indeed, the very notion of an improper thought is proof of this as the Golden Rule can only be violated with an action, moreover, I daresay no atheist is willing to grant a rapist a free moral pass on the grounds that he would not object to being raped himself.

This adherence is not rational, it is merely unconscious acquiescence to the human herd mentality. Civilization runs three generations deep. That is the extent of moral inertia." Vox Day

what about selling your daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7? Oh thats right, you don't LITERALLY sell your daughter into slavery, its a metaphor for loving thy neighbor

Define "slavery"

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations, these are morals at their very best! I suppose I forgot to borrow that one

Again, define slavery. It can't be "Wat I sez so" and it certainly can't be the same institution that existed in the antebellum south being that no atheist worth his weight in baby oil would be so stupid as to argue so. (Wait, you just might be. Let me get your response first)

Thank you Anon. I knew someone would come through for me. So reality is, you and the others that you know aren’t good without God AND you and the others that you know aren’t good even for goodness sake.

Not only don’t you live up to the standards of the Christian paradigm, you don’t even live up to your own moral system.

Nah, I just live in a country where the culture grinds into you that you're no good. Your god has nothing to do with it.

Biblical slavery sounds fun. You can be beaten and if you die later, well, your "his property" so it don't matter. And the Jubilee scam where you can go but the slavemaster keeps your wife and children. Good times!

2`When thou buyest a Hebrew slave -- six years he doth serve, and in the seventh he goeth out as a freeman for nought;... 4if his master give to him a wife, and she hath borne to him (the slave) sons or daughters -- the wife and her children are the master's, and he goeth out by himself.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Hi, I'm Anon. #4. I'm an intellectual wuss who won't read the link I was provided which goes into great detail explaining the verses I just quoted. I'm just going to stammer like a simpleton and pretend I know what I'm talking about. I win! Yaaay!

Part 1 (response to JD)I hope I'm not too late, I was busy today and don't want to breach the point of which nobody replies, because that happens alot here. I sincerely hope for a reply as I love to debate, and I finally got someone who will engage me... JD.

"Of whom may I ask? Please don't make my point for me by using a country that is in the area formerly known as "Christendom".

... What, like japan? Observing secular countries with a Christian background certainly doesn't make a point for you, because again, there should be a strong correlation between the deterioration of Christianity and an attached deterioration of moral purity. If pure objective morals are manifested only by the inspired word of the Christian god, then we should be able to observe this deteriorating moral inertia in countries of whom have abandoned "Christendom". There are very moral Buddhists, and yet many many generations have past, and they don't think its okay to kill and disobey their mother, absent of Christian ideology. Your calling me historically ignorant and yet you make the claim that there would exist no fundamental system of morals unless borrowed from the Christians, while Buddha taught not to kill, not to steal, not to engage in adultery and so on, 500 years before Christ was born! (And that's just one example) Are you kidding me JD? LOL

NEXT!...

"You're oversimplifying the matter as only a poorly educated, historically ignorant atheist can do. at least the more intellectually honest practioners of your non-theistic religion readily admit that Christianity has been a boom for mankind in a variety of ways."

By the way, I never said Christianity hasn't been without contribution, that's not my position, and never claimed it to be. I know alot of very good Christian people, and I think most of what Jesus said was morally ahead of the times. Christians also contribute alot of money towards a large number of good causes as well as have, no doubt, the highest rate for raising adopted kids, which I think is noble and kind. However this is not the argument we're engaged in. Our argument is whether we would have become moral agents without Christianity, I'm not the one oversimplifying here. Your suggesting that we would not have "got it" if it wasn't part of Christian culture, but it's you who insults history when you ignore the fact that people were already "getting it" in various places of the world during and before the rise of Christianity, independent of Christian values. I'm not historically ignorant, it's rather you who are historically biased.

I simply assumed it was obvious to you that the only lines of morality Christians' agreed upon more or less universally were the ones that were as vague as the 10 commandments of which I consequentially and aptly addressed. You argue my point yourself when we discuss lesser known mechanics of Christianity and how flexible our interpretations of the bible's text is allowed to be. A major point I think you miss is that if the bible is so saturated in metaphor, it's up to our own relativistic interpretations of how we define the text we read and the morals we color our lives in. Therefore, how can anyone defend a moral code undefined? How can Christians claim to be the pioneers of moral modernity when the only verified morals we can safely identify with Christians are the vague ones that so many other cultures adopted before Christianity?

Economic success is one metric in which Japan compares favorably to other nations who have a Christian heritage.

Having the highst suicide rate among industrialized nations is one in which they fair poorly Link

Are there even going to be any Japanese at all in the years to come based on their having such a staggaringly low birth rate? Link

Insofar as your other points, how does the rest of the world stack up against the Christian West in terms of societal attitudes towards infanticide, prostitution and slaughter ordered by heads of state?

Well, Japan's crime is one of the lowest of the first world countries and they have the longest average lifespan of any other culture. Though I regret even mentioning Japan, because I didn't want to take the focus off my main point, which is what has happened. My main point, again is that a respective deterioration should be observed when a state transitions itself away from Christianity. My position from the beginning has been, that Christian morals are no more objective than the atheists.

I mentioned the polls illustrating the strong correlation between secularized nations and a retreat from religion, and you counter with an idea that most of the now secularized nations became successful by means of a Christian past. My counter was to argue that we should see a deterioration synchronized with a retreat from Christianity and that is where we stay now. You need to address this.

The bulk of your argument was picking on one sentence while ignoring the entirety of my argument with exception of your very brief response to my "other points"

"Insofar as your other points, how does the rest of the world stack up against the Christian West in terms of societal attitudes towards infanticide, prostitution and slaughter ordered by heads of state?"Okay, I assume infanticide is abortion. There is a strong correlation between religious fundamentalism and abortion rates. It turns out that secularized nations have the lowest abortion rates...http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/03/07/abortions-highest-where-religion-is-highest.htmProstitution, I'm not sure about as far as being a correlation between secularism and the density of occurrence.And I'm suprised you bring up capital punishment, as not only does it tend to occur in the most religious countries of the world, it's obviously favored by non-secularists the majority of the time. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise but okay.

My main point, again is that a respective deterioration should be observed when a state transitions itself away from Christianity

And I posted a quote stating that moral inertia runs 3 generations deep. Which culture in the world has become "post-Christian" by 3 generations that we can look at?

You need to address this

Since you brought up the "you need to address this" line of argumentation, I would like you to address the following.

1. Twice in my above entries I asked you to define "slavery". You have not done so. Please address this.

Since it seems that you need a little nudge in the right direction in order to maintain your focus, I'll ask you the following re: slavery.

1. Were slaves in the antebellum south slaves overwhelmingly voluntarily?

2. What percentage of slaves in the antebellum south sold their services to a master in order to be integrated into American society someday as free persons?

3. Did slaves in the antebellum south have a realistic expectation of being set free by age 35 if not younger?

4. How did elderly Abraham and his wife Sarah maintain, literally, thousands of slaves? Did they take turns keeping watch over them, alternately "surrounding" them so they didnt escape?

Thats 4 questions, enough to get you started anyway.

Furthermore, I notice that I asked you for a for an example of a country with socio-econimic well-being outside the area formerly known as "Christiandom". You answered with Japan. I pointed out that Japan has the highest rate of suicide among industrailized nations. Furthermore, Japanese arent reproducing enough to even replace themselves because their birthrates are so precariously low. How do you respond? By not addressing either point I raise and instead point to a relatively low crime rate. The longevity can probably be attributed to a diet that includes raw fish and steamed rice several meals a week as opposed to Big Macs and fries.

I'll be willing to comment on the crime rate if you tell me why not only Japanese but atheists in general off themselves at rates much higher than religious people. This is a fact that any intellectually honest atheist will admit is completely true.

"Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found" Link

One more thing you might like to do is access an online dictionary and tell me the difference between "infanticide" and "abortion" so I have an inkling that I'm not wasting my time with a maleducated fool.

Well... I think I'm honestly starting to understand why so many atheists just refrain from trying to debate theists... This is turning out to be a lost cause, nevertheless...

I'll start with a quote...

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they allow disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children now are tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.” - Socrates

You claim to have addressed my point simply by saying "Moral inertia runs 3 generations deep." ...well, according to who? some blogger you read? You like to quote vox day, I'm wondering if all your ideas come from this guy. Look, there's no reason to take that serious. There's no science or credible observation behind this claim, its simply something that the blogger made up, based on his own intuition. NOT TO MENTION, I've been trying to stick to only secular nations, just for the sport of it, but to attack your claim, I have to do nothing of the sort. all I have to do is start mentioning "non-Christian" nations that have a defined system of morals independent of "Christendom". Actually I touched on that briefly by mentioning Buddhism, a religion older than Christianity, that taught most of the same morals. You say nothing about a Christian structure of specific morals that we can refer to and observe, that we could not have otherwise achieved if Christianity did not exist. Morals are a part of humanity as knowledge. Islam came up with algebra, but nobody thinks that we would never have achieved algebra if it weren't for a belief in Mohammed. Christianity was behind calculus, but nobody thinks that if it weren't for Jesus dying on the cross we'd not have non-linear equations. Morals have progressed through the flux of human civilizations, and whether it came about quicker or slower under the watch of Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism, I couldn't tell you, but your the one making the outrageous claim that we could not have morals without the Christian god.

You probably didn't notice, but I've been going down the line attempting to cover everything you've brought up, it just so happens that defining "slavery" was for part 2 of, what was going to be 2 parts of a response. You'll notice a "Part 1" on the top of a previous response, I didn't get a chance to get to part 2. And yet I've said so much that you haven't even attempted to touch on.

Some major things I have yet to receive an answer to are..

What makes Christian morals more objective than my morals?

Why haven't Buddhists deteriorated away from moral truth, being that they never even had Christian moral truths from the beginning, let alone "3 generations"? How is it that civilizations independent of Christian based ones, come to the same moral conclusions, independent of Christianity?

How can a Christian complain about atheist morals being relativistic, when bible interpretation is the epitome of relativism?

These are important dynamics of our argument that I'd think you would have addressed, but instead, your hung up on trying to attack my japan comment, and the fact that I haven't had the chance to answer your slave question yet. These are not the central points of our argument, though I will address them nevertheless. Also, you childishly try to call me uneducated a couple times while attacking the fact that I haven't heard of the term infanticide. (by the way, try to make sure you don't make up a word that isn't in the dictionary while simultaneously advising me to consult one. Maleducated isn't a word.)

I honestly don't think your contention is that I'm uneducated, but rather, your words more likely broadcast a defensiveness on your part. I think this, because based solely on my words alone, I doubt my content is so below average it necessitates spastic declarations of my incompetence. Further, based on your replies alone, if we assume you to be as advanced as your narcissistically arrogant text illustrates, we should see a completely different body of text more complimentary to the vision of yourself you would like us to perceive.

Moving on...

Now, on to slavery...

YES! there were humane elements of slavery in the bible. Like the fact that if you permanently injure your slave in the course of beating him/her, they get to go free. Or when it comes to sexual slavery, of ones daughter for instance, it perhaps resembled an arranged marriage more than sex trafficking. Also, some slaves got to go free after 6 years by default. And some were even treated pretty good! BUT THIS IS ONLY RELATIVELY HUMANE. This is humane relative to something more cruel. This doesn't make it okay. Punching your brother in the chest is not okay simply because you didn't cut off his finger instead. The interesting thing is that these things would not have been tolerated if it was morally disgusting to allow. People thought that it was okay under the right conditions. A position we don't hold these days, as we've come closer in our moral paradigm to the avoidance of harm to all humanity, whether we're religious or not.

1. Were slaves in the antebellum south slaves overwhelmingly voluntarily?

2. What percentage of slaves in the antebellum south sold their services to a master in order to be integrated into American society someday as free persons?

3. Did slaves in the antebellum south have a realistic expectation of being set free by age 35 if not younger?

I'll address these three in one paragraph. These 3 questions are all designed to illustrate the difference between biblical slavery and the antebellum south that many of us associate with the word slavery. Your position is obviously one that defines two different definitions of slavery. While you may make a case that biblical slavery was much more humane than the antebellum south, this does not shine a superior moral light on Christianity or our debate. Unless the bible defines slavery as nicely paid work with benefits and paid vacation, its safe to assume that slavery could have been overwhelmingly voluntary because the other choice involved starvation and ultimately death. Furthermore, If the connotation of slavery in the bible does not resemble the English word of slavery, then why translate it as such? and so again I'll restate the problem, with a quote from you..

"Define "slavery"

-JD

Exactly my point. Define anything in the bible, this is relativism.

4. How did elderly Abraham and his wife Sarah maintain, literally, thousands of slaves? Did they take turns keeping watch over them, alternately "surrounding" them so they didn't escape?

This question is supposed to finish me off with a keen juxtaposition between the virtual image of slavery I connote to the antebellum south from the previous 3 questions with my ignorance of biblical slavery. I'm supposed to be dumbfounded by this. I'll answer this with a question. If the bible says that Abraham lived to be 175 years old, how can we take any other accounts of his life seriously?

By the way I'm not losing focus, I simply remain focused on things that actually pertain to the fundamental structure of the debate.

Now I'd like to respond to Vox Day's quote you pasted...

"Atheist morality in a traditional Western culture is virtually identical to Christian morality with the excision a few of the sexual mores. But being largely ignorant of the source of these morals, most atheists don't realize that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is merely a small, but important subset of Christian morality, it is not even the most important part.

But atheists don't subscribe to the part of the morality based on the subset alone. They readily recognize "evils" that are not violations of the Golden Rule, but are instead violations of other aspects of Christian morality in its totality, violations of the Will of God. Indeed, the very notion of an improper thought is proof of this as the Golden Rule can only be violated with an action, moreover, I daresay no atheist is willing to grant a rapist a free moral pass on the grounds that he would not object to being raped himself.

This adherence is not rational, it is merely unconscious acquiescence to the human herd mentality. Civilization runs three generations deep. That is the extent of moral inertia." Vox Day"

...This is very silly. Vox somehow thinks that moral dynamics outside the parameters of the golden rule, must absolutely be god's will. He then says that the atheist moral compass, like a Christian one, operates on behaviors outside the golden rule, and must therefore only fit into that realm vox just weirdly declares is the will of god and nothing else.

You call me poorly educated and then you immediately paste this crap... sad.

I touched on that briefly by mentioning Buddhism, a religion older than Christianity, that taught most of the same morals.

Acually, using Buddhist principles, please point out

A. how prostitution is wrongB. how infanticide is wrongC. How mass slaughter is wrong

Good luck with the above since Buddhism does not even recognize the concept of "sin".

While youre harping on about a moral code please instruct me as to which religion taught us to "love your enemies" prior to Christianity or that our thoughts can constitute sin.

Morals have progressed through the flux of human civilizations, and whether it came about quicker or slower under the watch of Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism, I couldn't tell you, but your the one making the outrageous claim that we could not have morals without the Christian god

Let's take these one at a time. Please juxtapose how historically Christian nations view the crime of forcible rape with Muslim nations in which the victim is either put to death or made to marry the perpetrator. Your thoughts please..

Your position is obviously one that defines two different definitions of slavery. While you may make a case that biblical slavery was much more humane than the antebellum south, this does not shine a superior moral light on Christianity or our debate. Unless the bible defines slavery as nicely paid work with benefits and paid vacation, its safe to assume that slavery could have been overwhelmingly voluntary because the other choice involved starvation and ultimately death

You prove that you are viewing the events of several thousand years ago through the eyes of someone who is comparing it to modern standards instead of the time they happened. Brilliant. Using your logic I could harp all day about how God didnt instruct anyone about the 8 hour work day then and won't divulge the secret to cold fusion now.

Number one is to refrain from taking life. That knocks B and C off your list. And number four is to refrain from sexual misconduct, and that knocks off A. Your welcome.

"While you're harping on about a moral code please instruct me as to which religion taught us to "love your enemies" prior to Christianity or that our thoughts can constitute sin."

No problem..

"Love thy neighbor as thyself: Do not to others what thou wouldn't not wish be done to thyself: Forgive injuries. Forgive thy enemy, be reconciled to him, give him assistance. invoke God in his behalf. "

- Confucius (five centuries before Jesus)

"I should be like the sun, shining universally on all without seeking thanks or reward, able to take care of all sentient beings even if they are bad, never giving up on my vows on this account, not abandoning all sentient beings because one sentient being is evil. "

- Buddhism. Garland Sutra 23

"The sage has no fixed [personal] ideas.He regards the people's ideas as his own.I treat those who are good with goodness,And I also treat those who are not good with goodness.Thus goodness is attained. I am honest with those who are honest,And I am also honest with those who are dishonest.Thus honesty is attained. "

- Taoism. Tao Te Ching 49

"A superior being does not render evil for evil; this is a maxim one should observe; the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or those of cruel deeds when they are actually committing them--for who is without fault? :

"Which one of your above examples mention either prostitution, infanticide or mass slaughter?Youre not making the EPIC mistake of assuming that "it's just understood" are you?"

...Wow JD are you serious? The quality of your arguments are deteriorating rapidly as we progress.There are five precepts of Buddhism...

precept - pre-cept (pree-sept)-noun1. A commandment or direction given as a rule of action or conduct.2. An injunction as to moral conduct; maxim.3. A procedural directive or rule, as for the performance of some technical operation.4. Law

Okay, so basically Buddhists have 5 commandments. (and some others have 8)

NUMBER ONE IS THIS..."1. I will be mindful and reverential with all life, I will not be violent nor will I kill.Avoid killing or harming any living being.I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures. I shall endeavor to protect and take care of all living creatures.Do not do harm to other beings. "

Okay, now infanticide and mass slaughter are two forms of killing. Precept number one says, not to kill. in fact it pertains to all life, not just infants and adult humans. So where is there room for assumption on this one? this is just getting ridiculous now.

Now we have precept number four... okay? ready?This pertains to prostitution okay?

"4. I will be conscious and loving in my relationships, I will not give way to lust.Avoid sexual irresponsibility.I undertake the precept to refrain from improper sexual activity.Do not engage in sexual misconduct."

And if that isn't clear enough, we can quote a Zen master for clarification.

"Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I vow to cultivate my responsibility and learnways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families and society. I am determinednot to engage in sexual relations without love and long-term commitment. To preserve thehappiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments ofothers. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to protect familiesfrom being broken by sexual misconduct."

- Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh.

Notice how it says "I am determined not to engage in the sexual relations without love and long-term commitment."Got it? Any more clarification on that one JD?(SIGH...)

Outstanding. Now what was the profound effect that this had on society? Anywhere?

"Marraige is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns, several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water."

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

When researching the word "foundling", what was either the Confucian or Buddhist influence on the word origin? I'm only able to locate Christian sources.

I'm an atheist and I have long since resigned myself to the fact that leading a truly ethically upstanding life is virtually impossible. I have "invented" my own moral system based on such disparate writings as Hugh Mackay's Right & Wrong, Peter Singer's The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to Save World Poverty, Peter Singer's How Are We To Live? Ethics In An Age of Self-Interest and Peter Unger's Living High, Letting Die. I set a high standard and I haven't come close to meeting it yet. But I'm still trying ....

Wait number 5. Get a load of this complete nonsense from his previous entry.

Notice how it says "I am determined not to engage in the sexual relations without love and long-term commitment

Ha! Given that the 2 countries in the world that claim the highest percentage of Buddhists among their population, Thailand and Cambodia (at 95 and 90% of their populations respectively) are little more than oversized brothels masquerading as nation-states, I can't imagine the onslaught of hand-waving to come should snack bar desire to continue this line of intellectual hari-kari.

Anyone reading the thread can see how sad it's got. It's not sad that your initial premise was torn apart; it's not sad that each "gotcha!" question was easily answered; it's sad how you somehow have the craziness to think you are "winning".It's sad that you can't see what everyone else sees; you can't see what's staring you in the face.

Please tell me in what time stamped entry above I stated that brothels do not exist in the Christian west or admit that you are blatantly lying.

"Thailand’s government, which understandably resists the label “brothel of the world.” It has threatened to expel journalists who impugn the honour of Thai womenfolk, and forced Longman’s dictionary to change its 1993 edition, the entry for Bangkok which included the line “a place where there are a lot of prostitutes.” Link

I'm not the one that calls them the "brothel of the world" Copernicus. Apparently others do.

And talk about "sad". Not only do you post as someone who is as anonymous as your favorite glory-hole participant in a power outage, you fail to realize that it's me waiting for the snack attack to respond, not the other way around.. Sad indeed McFly. Sad indeed.

"In trying to figure out how we can defeat sex trafficking, a starting point is to think like a brothel owner.

My guide to that has been Sok Khorn, an amiable middle-aged woman who is a longtime brothel owner here in the wild Cambodian town of Poipet. I met her five years ago when she sold me a teenager, Srey Mom, for $203 and then blithely wrote me a receipt confirming that the girl was now my property. At another brothel nearby, I purchased another imprisoned teenager for $150.

Astonished that in the 21st century I had bought two human beings, I took them back to their villages and worked with a local aid group to help them start small businesses" Link

I think I know what you are thinking. "This happens all the time in Queensland/Omaha/York/Normandy". Right?

Run Away number 4. Run away! At least your anonimity is intact. Your arguments? We're still waiting for something specific. Perhaps like our dear friend the Snack Attack, you can try to cram every sort of comparison in a search engine possible and still walk away with the absolute knowledge that Christianity has done more to alleviate infanticide and prostitution than ANY other belief system under the sun.

Should you disagree, I would be grateful to see you present your arguments here.

Why do I get the distinct feeling that you will not offer up ONE single solitary thing of substance though? Probably past experience along with the assurance that your grandmother is probably more knowledgeable than you are based on her past experiences and honesty.

Sorry for the delay, but I was having a personal debate with myself about whether I should continue this madness...

THOU SHALT NOT KILL...Top nations ranked by murder per capita/Predominant Religion of the Country

1.Columbia 0.617847 per 1,000 people/95% of the population is Christian2.South Africa 0.496008 per 1,000 people/79.75 of the population is Christian3.Jamaica 0.324196 per 1,000 people/59%of the population is Christian4.Venezuela 0.316138 per 1,000 people/92% of the population is Roman Catholic5.Russia 0.201534 per 1,000 people/63% of the population is Russian Orthodox

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL...Top nations ranked by Total Crimes per capita/Predominant Religion of the Country

1.Dominica 113.822 per 1,000 people/77% of the population is Roman Catholic2.New Zealand 105.881 per 1,000 people/56% of the population is Christian3.Finland 101.526 per 1,000 people/79.7 of the population is Evangelical Lutheran4.Denmark 92.8277 per 1,000 people/81.5% of the population is Lutheran5.Chile 88.226 per 1,000 people/70% of the population is Roman Catholic

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERYTop nations ranked by Rapes per capita/Predominant Religion of the Country

1.South Africa 1.19538 per 1,000 people/79.75% of the population is Christian2.Seychelles 0.788294 per 1,000 people/82% of the population is Roman Catholic3.Australia 0.777999 per 1,000 people/64% of the population is Christian4.Montserrat 0.749384 per 1,000 people/?% majority Anglican5.Canada 0.733089 per 1,000 people/77% of the population is Christian

You'll notice that every single nation listed, governs its system of morals off the teachings of Jesus Christ. Does this mean that Christianity is evil? No, not really, but we must really question whether Christianity has the moral edge it claims to have. Are non-Christian nations corrupt? Sure, I think most of us here would agree that RADICAL Islam in recent times has had a very broken moral compass, and yet 4 of the 5 countries with absolute lowest rate of rape per capita are overwhelmingly Muslim nations. The world right now, is dominated by religion, and yet we believe that it's diluted over time. What does this tell us? Well, we can look up statistics about rape or murder and try to make assumptions about causality, but the fact is, that it's hard to separate the mass majority with statistical data, when making assumptions pertaining to the historical flux of morality in homo sapiens. I don't think Christianity is the root of all evil, and yet we can look at the statistics right there. If the larger bulk of humanity practiced Christian dogma for the past 2000 years, how can we attach moral achievement to a majority that by sheer statistical advantage can be misleadingly attributed to Christianity by the odds alone?

Do atrocities happen in Cambodia? Sure, its not the first place I'd want to visit. But then I'd hate to go to the republic of the Congo as well, where 80 percent of the population is Christian. The republic of the Congo tends to oscillate between "peace" and civil war. Almost 4 million people died in the last civil war) The Congo is little kids shooting big guns, blood red streets littered with blue bodies, a hot war, cold, under the watch of an intended warm message of Jesus Christ, and should we blame Jesus? You can select a non-Christian nation to pick on, and I can find a Christian one to pick on and we can repeat this all day, but we'd miss the point. Bickering on the trivialities of the debate, avoids the actual important points that necessitate a reasonable argument for us to progress. This is why I'm reluctant to even respond, because the argument becomes directed towards partially relevent details, and even if you could help to gravitate these details towards your favor, the larger details are still pending an actual confrontation.

What percentage of those arrested for those crimes are practicing Christians?

Compare this with religions that teach that it is OK to murder others to advance the faith like Islam.

You still havent come up with the relevant Buddhist/Confucian references re: infanticide and the effect that these religions had on China or any other part of the world that actually reduced it or their influence on the origin of the word "foundling". Where are are the Confucian foundling hospitals Sanck Bar?

Anonymous #2, I can't help but notice how clever you are and how witty and well-researched your commentary is.

I hope you forgive me for being so forward in a public forum such as this but are you gay? Because if so, boy do I have the person for you.

His name is Chance and he's a co-worker of mine. He might not be the best looking but he more than makes up for any such shortcomings with a wit and sense of humor that is matched only by your own. I sent him a link to this thread and he readily agreed that he would like to get to know you.

If you are so interested, email him at Chance@mybeefagainstyours.com in order to get things started. If you arent looking for anything long term he can be quite discreet from what I hear. Go ahead. Take a chance on Chance. What do you have to lose?

Insofar as your rape statistics, do they take into consideration countries in which rape is official government policy such as Iraq under the Hussein regime or modern day Iran? Do these rapes count toward the overall statistics? LinkFor comparison, do any of the Christian countries on your list have rape as official government policy?

Are rape victims either killed or forced to marry the perpetrator as in Muslim countries?

Are countries such as Turkey where they no longer encourage honor killings that much more well off if instead they have "forced suicides"?

What exactly was the atheist website's response to this one Snack bar?

"Under Islamic law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses. Women who allege rape, without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men who subsequently develop a conscience, are actually confessing to having sex. If they or the accused happens to be married, then it is considered to be adultery." Link

And what is a woman's punishment for adultery ASB? Now, I'm sure that you've looked into this and are fully ready to expalin to me, with a straight face, that rape is NOT underreported in Muslim countries, arent you?

#2, help SB out a little. In the Muslim world, are these murder statistics being reported? Link. Seriously, what's your guess?

"The shootings of al-Tallal and Umm Salam are not isolated incidents, even in Najaf — a city almost exclusively Shia and largely insulated from the sectarian violence of the North. Bodies of young women have appeared in its dusty lanes and avenues, places patrolled by packs of dogs where the boundaries bleed into the desert. It is a favourite place for dumping murder victims.

Iraqis do not like to talk about it much, but there is an understanding of what is going on these days. If a young woman is abducted and murdered without a ransom demand, she has been kidnapped to be raped. Even those raped and released are not necessarily safe: the response of some families to finding that a woman has been raped has been to kill her.

Iraq's women are living with a fear that is increasing in line with the numbers dying violently every month. They die for being a member of the wrong sect and for helping their fellow women. They die for doing jobs that the militants have decreed that they cannot do: for working in hospitals and ministries and universities. They are murdered, too, because they are the softest targets for Iraq's criminal gangs."

Also, I'm unfamiliar with the Christian concept of a "pleasure marraige" that absolves a rapist by granting him a temporary 1 hour marraige. If these were common in the Christian West, what do you think would happen to rape statistics there?

Could you tell me if police officers in Pakistan carrry "rape kits" in their cars to help identify the DNA of the perp thus assisting the prosecution?

"Mr. Rahman, 28, chief executive of the immensely popular Geo TV network, was speaking last Sunday at a youth conference in Rawalpindi, the garrison city adjacent to the capital, Islamabad. His absurd statement, he immediately made clear, was meant to illustrate the failings of a set of Islamic decrees known collectively as the Hudood Ordinance.

The laws, introduced in 1979 and criticized internationally since, include a clause stating that to prove rape, a woman must have at least four male witnesses. If the woman fails to provide proof, she herself faces the charge of adultery.

"The Hudood Ordinance makes no distinction between rape and adultery," Mr. Rahman explained to his audience. "It is just like saying there is no difference between an apple and an orange."

That flaw, critics say, has put many women behind bars. Of about 6,000 women in Pakistani custody awaiting trial as of March, 4,621 were being held on Hudood violations, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an independent group. Some 1,300 women awaiting trial were ordered released on Friday, after President Pervez Musharraf allowed bail in nonviolent offenses." Link

Now, what would happen to rape statistics in the West if they were to adopt such laws? Would they plummet overnight?

"Americans have already succumbed to using an Islamist phrase, "honor killing" to describe the brutal, pre-meditated murders of Muslim women (often wives or daughters) by Muslim relatives (often fathers or brothers).

There are thousands of these killings overseas (many under-reported and perpetrators unpunished) in countries ranging from Bangladesh to Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan and in Western societies like Great Britain where Muslims have emigrated. Many more Muslim women are beaten and abused. While Muslims account for less than 6% of the Dutch population, Muslim women constitute 60% of those seeking refuge in battered women's shelters." Link

The above article contains numerous instances of killings done by Muslims living in the West, which of course further inflates our murder rate. If you can prove that these "honor killings" are accurately counted in the murder statistics of Muslim theocracies, then I concede the point.

Anonymous #2, I can't help but notice how clever you are and how witty and well-researched your commentary is.

I hope you forgive me for being so forward in a public forum such as this but are you gay? Because if so, boy do I have the person for you.

His name is Chance and he's a co-worker of mine. He might not be the best looking but he more than makes up for any such shortcomings with a wit and sense of humor that is matched only by your own. I sent him a link to this thread and he readily agreed that he would like to get to know you.

If you are so interested, email him at Chance@mybeefagainstyours.com in order to get things started. If you arent looking for anything long term he can be quite discreet from what I hear. Go ahead. Take a chance on Chance. What do you have to lose?

My first instinct was that this was spam. But in case it isn't - I'm sorry. I can't contact people or even drop hints about my sexuality or even my gender. I'm Anonymous #2 and I swore on the skull of my father (the original Anonymous #2) that I would stay anonymous until I can pass the title down to my descendants. Anonymous #2 can never die.

Whoa, JD! Pump the breaks. Your misinterpreting my words, let's go over what I said before you finish your novel on the atrocities of Islam.

Reread the two paragraphs of my last response and you may notice that I start by helping you out in a way. I'm trying to let you know that despite all the statistical data about Christianity, I don't actually believe it's because of the teachings of Jesus Christ that a 95% Christian dominated country like Columbia has the highest murder rate in the world. In fact, I then mention the Islamic rape statistic to HELP BACK THAT UP. I said that most of us would agree (Including me, if that wasn't obvious) that radical Islam has a broken moral compass before quoting an seemingly incompatible statistic.

I've been trying to paint an analogy that says; culture or religion is the fog of which a moral wavelength must pierce in it's commute through time, and different types of fog dictate how fast the wave will go. Sometimes the moral wave will have to breach the density of Islam, and other times Christianity, or Judaism. The moral wave may have a harder time making it's way through Buddhism than Hinduism, however the moral wave will commute nonetheless. I then go on to say that the mass of Christian culture is so much a bulk throughout recent history, that the moral wave may find it's achievements on the door step of Christianity by statistical favor. HOWEVER, I'm not saying that ANY moral achievement by Christianity may only be a fluke of chance, just that it's narcissistic to think Christianity CREATED morals.

In the same breath as I caution the interpretation of statistical data, I will return to observe the beginning of the debate where I paste the link that reports about the statistical relationship between socio-economic well being and secular nations. I mentioned this because the statistics shows exactly the opposite of what many theists and Christian apologists say we should see, which is why I found it relevant. (Not because it shows something, but because it doesn't show something) Again it isn't that the 95% Christian nation of Columbia is the most violent that intrigues me, but rather that a nation so overwhelmingly Christian is NOT one of the lowest in murder. If Christian morality is more than just some commandments; if Christian morality, is some kind of silent, benevolent, and parasitic power that saturates the mentalities of true believers; and if its sole function is to keep the moral compass of the possessed Christian populous finely calibrated, than why do we not observe those results?

I don't think that it's in spite of Christianity that almost 4 million people died in the last civil war of the 80% Christian, republic of Congo, but I DO find it very odd that a nation so Christian, is not protected under the force-field of the only true morality, Christian morality.

We must therefore experiment with ideas that Christian morality is no more objective or material than any other moral matrix. We must flirt with the idea that Christian morals are as artificial as any other. But I don't think that morals, not being of universal significance, even compromise their objectivity. I think objective morals are to morality as compatibilism is to determinism. The problem lies in our poor definition of morality, we've defined morality under the assumptions of a creator god, and people have a hard time understanding morality apart from these assumptions, and they then make the mistake of not recognizing morality without such religious attachments.

We must therefore experiment with ideas that Christian morality is no more objective or material than any other moral matrix. We must flirt with the idea that Christian morals are as artificial as any other

And exactly what was the rebuttal concerning the Confucian/Buddhist response to the question concerning the origin of the word "foundling"? What was their response to the situation? If you walk out the door tomorrow morning and trip over a dead baby that was left out overnight to die from exposure, to what group can you attribute that it's a sad item worthy of mention on the local evening news rather than an all too common fact of life that you'll just have to live with? Proactive Confucians or Buddhists? Or just maybe the followers of Jesus Christ?

Troll? Buah-ha-ha! This is only the beginning Einsteinian also-rans! I havent even begun to go on the offensive yet. Next, should ASB address my last point re: infanticide, we're going to examine the Buddhist/Shinto/Confucian efforts to curb cannibalism amongst different cultures around the world compared with Christian efforts in addition to a Christianity vs. Islam+Hinduism comparison regarding the advancement of the humane treatment of women. I'll check back from time to time but rather then engaging in some sort of self reassuring circle jerk, why not offer up something substantive to address my last point?

Oedipus was a foundling taken in more than five centuries before Christ. What's your point?

Was Oedipus even a real person? Or was he every bit as fake as the atheist that is "good for goodness sake" while never realizing he's following a moral code set by others a long time before he ever came into being?

Oedipus was written about 5 centuries before Christ. Your implied claim that only Christians take in foundlings is wrong. It doesn't matter if Oedipus was real or not.

You seem to be attempting to claim that Christianity is the only ideology to have a "civilizing" effect. It really is a fool's errand because to "prove" that you'd need to show other ideologies didn't have a civilizing effect.

"Despite our predilection for considering modern civilization "advanced," the crime of infanticide has continued to pervade most contemporary cultures. The major difference between the nature of infanticide in the twentieth century, when compared to the rest of recorded history, however, is due to the impact of one modern medical advancement: the widespread availability of safe, and legal, means of abortion. The ability to easily terminate a pregnancy, and thereby eliminate an unwanted child before it is born, has had a profound effect on the prevalence of infanticide. The human species has killed almost 10% - 15% of all children born. The majority of these murders have been associated with reasons of necessity at least in the minds of the infanticide parent - or with untoward reactions against an unwanted birth. With little ability to abort an unwanted pregnancy safely, troubled parents have had little choice but to wait until full-term delivery before disposing of the conception.

Statistically, the United States ranks high on the list of countries whose inhabitants kill their children. For infants under the age of one year, the American homicide rate is 11th in the world, while for ages one through four it is 1st and for ages five through fourteen it is fourth. From 1968 to 1975, infanticide of all ages accounted for almost 3.2% of all reported homicides in the United States.

Infanticide has pervaded almost every society of mankind from the Golden Age of Greece to the splendor of the Persian Empire. While there are many diverse reasons for this wanton destruction, two of the most statistically important are poverty and population control."

- Laila Williamsonanthropologist of the American Museum of Natural History

...Notice the two most statistically important reasons are poverty and population control. Notice how when you add the accessibility of abortion, the infanticide rate drops drastically. Notice that when you factor in the abundance of contraception the rate of infanticide drops dramatically. Despite even these luxuries, America, the country with more Christians than any other in the world, ranks high in infanticide.

Oh noes! I called a Vox Day a video game designer, fantasy book writer, electronic "musician" and Hitler "admirer" on JD's blog. JD flipped out (gave it two comments), deleted the comment and increased the blog's censorship level.

Anyway, I was wrong.

I googled it, and checked quotes. Vox admired Nazi's (but not specifically Hitler) and some of the things the Nazi's did.